Hello Jim, Jim Meyering wrote: > Please revert those changes.
Reverted. Sorry, I thought the were straightforward and in line with what you would agree to. > More importantly, don't you think you should have waited for approval > from Paul (and discussion on this list) before making an _interface change_ > to the "human" module? Especially when I already expressed reluctance > to change that part? Sorry again; I interpreted your words as hesitation regarding the human.c part. I thought Paul would speak up within two days. The change was in line with the i18n issues we discussed. Regarding the interface change, you can see from Google codesearch http://www.google.com/codesearch?as_q=%5CWhuman_options%5CW&btnG=Code+suchen&hl=de&as_lang=c&as_license_restrict=i&as_license=&as_package=&as_filename=&as_case= that only coreutils and tar appear to be using this function; I verified that the newest release of 'tar' doesn't use it. > My concern is that uses of human may well be in contexts where there is > *no* option/argument involved. Hence you've now introduced an artificial > constraint in making its diagnostic speak of an "argument". Yes, but I checked all callers. > As you can see, I disapprove of the human.h change (at least now, since > I've seen no discussion at all), so also object to your using my name > in the corresponding ChangeLog entry. I'm sorry about that as well. I was hesitating whether to put one or two ChangeLog entries. > Finally, regarding your proposed coreutils patch, do you really think > that passing a NULL "option string" into human_options is acceptable? Since the option string is used only if report_errors = true, yes. Bruno
